AFRL Additive Manufacturing Modeling Series: Challenge 4, 3D Reconstruction of an IN625 High-Energy Diffraction Microscopy Sample Using Multi-modal Serial Sectioning
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract High-energy diffraction microscopy (HEDM) in-situ mechanical testing experiments offer unique insight into the evolving deformation state within polycrystalline materials. These experiments rely on a sophisticated analysis of the diffraction data to instantiate a 3D reconstruction of grains and other microstructural features associated with the test volume. For microstructures of engineering alloys that are highly twinned and contain numerous features around the estimated spatial resolution of HEDM reconstructions, the accuracy of the reconstructed microstructure is not known. In this study, we address this uncertainty by characterizing the same HEDM sample volume using destructive serial sectioning (SS) that has higher spatial resolution. The SS experiment was performed on an Inconel 625 alloy sample that had undergone HEDM in-situ mechanical testing to a small amount of plastic strain (~ 0.7%), which was part of the Air Force Research Laboratory Additive Manufacturing (AM) Modeling Series. A custom-built automated multi-modal SS system was used to characterize the entire test volume, with a spatial resolution of approximately 1 µm. Epi-illumination optical microscopy images, backscattered electron images, and electron backscattered diffraction maps were collected on every section. All three data modes were utilized and custom data fusion protocols were developed for 3D reconstruction of the test volume. The grain data were homogenized and downsampled to 2 µm as input for Challenge 4 of the AM Modeling Series, which is available at the Materials Data Facility repository.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Additive Manufacturing Materials and Processes · Machine Learning in Materials Science · Electron and X-Ray Spectroscopy Techniques
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (22)
Show source-provided references
1. Groeber M (2018) A preview of the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory additive manufacturing modeling challenge series. JOM 70(4):441–444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11837-018-2806-310.1007/s11837-018-2806-3 ↗
2. Schuren JC et al (2015) New opportunities for quantitative tracking of polycrystal responses in three dimensions. Curr Opin Solid State Mater Sci 19(4):235–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cossms.2014.11.00310.1016/j.cossms.2014.11.003 ↗
3. Menasche DB et al (2021) AFRL additive manufacturing modeling series: challenge 4, in situ mechanical test of an IN625 sample with concurrent high-energy difraction microscopy characterization. Integr Mater Manuf Innov10.1007/s40192-021-00218-3 ↗
4. Blaiszik B, Chard K, Pruyne J, Ananthakrishnan R, Tuecke S, Foster I (2016) The materials data facility: data services to advance materials science research. JOM 68(8):2045–2052. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11837-016-2001-310.1007/s11837-016-2001-3 ↗
5. Blaiszik B et al (2019) A data ecosystem to support machine learning in materials science. MRS Commun 9(4):1125–1133. https://doi.org/10.1557/mrc.2019.11810.1557/mrc.2019.118 ↗
6. Shade PA et al (2019) AFRL AM modeling challenge series: challenge 4 data package. Mater Data Facil. https://doi.org/10.18126/K5R2-32IU10.18126/K5R2-32IU ↗
7. Menasche DB, Shade PA, Suter RM (2020) Accuracy and precision of near-field high-energy diffraction microscopy forward-model-based microstructure reconstructions. J Appl Crystallogr 53(1):107–116. https://doi.org/10.1107/S160057671901600510.1107/S1600576719016005 ↗
8. Shade PA et al (2016) Fiducial marker application method for position alignment of in situ multimodal X-ray experiments and reconstructions. J Appl Cryst. 49:700–704. https://doi.org/10.1107/S160057671600198910.1107/S1600576716001989 ↗
9. Madison JD, Underwood OD, Poulter GA, Huffman EM (2017) Acquisition of real-time operation analytics for an automated serial sectioning system. Integr Mater Manuf Innov 6(2):135–146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40192-017-0091-610.1007/s40192-017-0091-6 ↗
10. Uchic M, et al (2012) An automated multi-modal serial sectioning system for characterization of grain-scale microstructures in engineering materials. In: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on 3D materials science, Springer, Cham, pp 195–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48762-5_3010.1007/978-3-319-48762-5_30 ↗
11. Boyce BL, Uchic MD (2019) Progress toward autonomous experimental systems for alloy development. MRS Bull 44(4):273–280. https://doi.org/10.1557/mrs.2019.7510.1557/mrs.2019.75 ↗
12. Kral MV, Spanos G (1999) Three-dimensional analysis of proeutectoid cementite precipitates. Acta Mater 47(2):711–724. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1359-6454(98)00321-810.1016/S1359-6454(98)00321-8 ↗
13. Russ JC, Neal FB (2018) The image processing handbook, 7th edn. CRC Press, London10.1201/b18983 ↗
14. Lowe DG (2004) Distinctive image features from scale-invariant keypoints. Int J Comput Vision 60(2):91–110. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:VISI.0000029664.99615.9410.1023/B:VISI.0000029664.99615.94 ↗
15. Jackson MA, Pascal E, De Graef M (2019) Dictionary indexing of electron back-scatter diffraction patterns: a hands-on tutorial. Integr Mater Manuf Innov 8(2):226–246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40192-019-00137-410.1007/s40192-019-00137-4 ↗
16. Nolze G (2007) Image distortions in SEM and their influences on EBSD measurements. Ultramicroscopy 107(2):172–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultramic.2006.07.00310.1016/j.ultramic.2006.07.003 ↗
17. Fiji: an open-source platform for biological-image analysis | Nature Methods. https://www.nature.com/articles/nmeth.2019. Accessed January 28, 2021
18. Preibisch S, Saalfeld S, Tomancak P (2009) Globally optimal stitching of tiled 3D microscopic image acquisitions. Bioinformatics 25(11):1463–1465. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btp18410.1093/bioinformatics/btp184 ↗
19. Yaniv Z, Lowekamp BC, Johnson HJ, Beare R (2018) SimpleITK image-analysis notebooks: a collaborative environment for education and reproducible research. J Digit Imaging 31(3):290–303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-017-0037-810.1007/s10278-017-0037-8 ↗
20. Gulsoy EB, Simmons JP, De Graef M (2009) Application of joint histogram and mutual information to registration and data fusion problems in serial sectioning microstructure studies. Scr Mater 60(6):381–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scriptamat.2008.11.00410.1016/j.scriptamat.2008.11.004 ↗
21. Groeber MA, Jackson MA (2014) DREAM.3D: a digital representation environment for the analysis of microstructure in 3D. Integr Mater 3(1):56–72. https://doi.org/10.1186/2193-9772-3-510.1186/2193-9772-3-5 ↗
22. Lenthe WC, Echlin MP, Trenkle A, Syha M, Gumbsch P, Pollock TM (2015) Quantitative voxel-to-voxel comparison of TriBeam and DCT strontium titanate three-dimensional data sets. J Appl Crystallogr 48(4):1034–1046. https://doi.org/10.1107/S160057671500923110.1107/S1600576715009231 ↗